Seems sharp enough for me, although one can't take conclusions from resized photos for the web. Honestly I don't know that lens, but for the looks of it seems that was produced in the same time as my recently bought 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 D IF. Mine is a superb lens at all focal lengths if you stop down a bit, I'm sure yours performs similarly.

Seems sharp enough for me, although one can't take conclusions from resized photos for the web. Honestly I don't know that lens, but for the looks of it seems that was produced in the same time as my recently bought 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 D IF. Mine is a superb lens at all focal lengths if you stop down a bit, I'm sure yours performs similarly.

Nothing obvious or distracting to me on this example. I don’t know about distortion of the lens but would think it’s reasonable on dx
and
if you have software that can do distortion correction I wouldn’t worry at all. Good way of getting idea about lens’ distortion is shooting a brick wall, getting the lines straight using such a software’s filter/feature (easily seen against a grid there) and note down the values plugged at certain FL having them at hand for next uses. This is working well and reduces distortions otherwise apparent to very acceptable degree – if not perfectly. Nx2 won’t have data to (auto)correct it I suppose (nor the adobe products). But an fx lens on dx won’t have big problems.

Looks nice and yes, if in good condition and within that aperture range it can be more than valid option. I’d shop for more modern D version I think though. If it’s meant for handheld use I’d also consider 18-105 VR that has high value/quality ratio plus versatility (but more distortion I guess). - having said that, a deliberate use of an "older" lens is somewhat likable to me.

Distortion is classic barrel which should be relatively easy to correct, I will shoot some brick walls, I think it is better above 28mm. But as the above photos show it is not too bad at 24 in real life and better than I expected.

I sold my 18-35 and wanted a 24mm for its compactness, however 24mm 2.8 are still very expensive used in the UK. I have been put off large wide angle lenses because of weight, and the fact that they look like telephoto lenses to non photographers and have had mixed reactions from the public. The 24-50 will be used mostly outside in good light where I would normally shoot at f8 anyway, and will use the 50 1.4 for portraits, so D version while nice to have may not be so important.

Also I am constantly surprised by the optical quality of these older lenses and enjoy exploring their abilities. Especially when they cost the same as half a tank of petrol in the UK.

Both the 50d 1.4 and the 24-50 rattle, but optical quality is not affected. This seems common on Af and Afd lenses and may have something to do with allowing fast focusing. The 24-50 seems even faster than the 50, and balances well on the D200/300. The AF version filters will rotate on focussing over its small range, The D version I have not seen. but it is 3 times the price from used lens dealers.

-you are right, like the telephotos, I remember 16-35/4 very long (one bit longer and it’d seem like something is flawed about this uwa). all are long, uwa fast primes also. - and understand your point - people scared off (or worse).

I’d watch out for flare as it’s an old design on digital sensor I am thinking – but Wales is not Texas in terms of sunshine. And I would be interested to see some of your images with it, samples look with plenty of detail – resizing won’t safe any lens that is soft. Having your 50/1.4 as a benchmark in your set you have pretty good idea how the lens fares and where it drops below requirements. This is by the way my favorite way of making a picture about lenses – relative to each other.

Cytokine wrote:

Also I am constantly surprised by the optical quality of these older lenses and enjoy exploring their abilities. Especially when they cost the same as half a tank of petrol in the UK.

Absolutely John. My guess is this copy is very good at 5.6, too, at least when borders are not critical. In any case a careful work with the lens can bypass a need for more investment now and can be producing splendid photography although we have to work a bit more. – like you say it’s all part of it.